COMMON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR COURSE

1 COMMON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT . INSTRUCTOR COURSE . STUDENT BOOK. VERSION Page 1. Homework Website: Page 2. COMMON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR COURSE . STUDENT GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS. Lesson 1: COURSE Introduction What is Army University Supposed to Do and How Is It Going So Far? Pg. 7. General Learning Outcomes White Paper Pg. 13. INSTRUCTOR Competencies Pg. 35. Lesson 2: Fundamentals of Adult teaching and Learning The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition Pg. 41. Lesson 3: Foundations of Adult Learning TP 350-70-7 Adult Learning and Army U Experiential Learning Model Pg. 49. Lesson 4: Foundations of Instruction (Experiential Learning). Appendix B: The Experiential Learning Model Pg. 53. Appendix C: The ELM Job Aid Pg. 58. Appendix G: Relationships between Learning Domains, Levels of Learning, and Los Pg. 59. TP 350-70-14 Instructional strategy and methods of instruction Pg.

2 67. Kolb Learning Styles Definitions and Descriptions Pg. 69. Lesson 5: Formative Practicum (Experiential Learning). Advanced Organizer Pg. 73. Lesson 6: Applied Critical Thinking (ACT) Tools and Groupthink Mitigation Techniques (GTM). Liberating Structures Pg. 77. Chapter IV: Critical Thinking Pg. 91. Chapter V: GTM & Decision Support Pg. 103. Appendix D: Handout-Select ACT Tool and GTM techniques Pg. 111. Questions Overview Pg. 117. Lesson 7: Foundations of Instruction (Direct Instruction). Handout #1: INSTRUCTOR Roles Pg. 123. Ten Roles for Teacher Leaders Pg. 125. Handout #2: Classroom Management Strategies Pg. 129. Handout #3: The Communication Process Pg. 133. Handout #4: Active Listening Pg. 137. Handout #5: Effective Questioning Techniques Pg. 139. Handout #6: Asking Question to Improve Learning Pg. 143. Handout #7: MOIs; Lecture, Demonstration, Drill and Practice, and Practical Exercise Pg.

3 147. TRADOC Regulation 350-70: INSTRUCTOR /Facilitator requirements Pg. 153. Twenty Ways to Make Lectures More Participatory Pg. 155. Lesson 8: Formative Practicum (Direct Instruction). Lesson 9: The Army INSTRUCTOR as a Professional Appendix B: ADRP 1 (extract) Pg. 163. Appendix C: ADRP 6-22 (extract) Pg. 165. Appendix D: Characteristics of Good INSTRUCTOR /Facilitators Pg. 167. Appendix E: Training New and Current INSTRUCTOR /Facilitators Pg. 169. Appendix F: Guidance Concerning Works Protected By Copyright Pg. 179. Appendix G: TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (extract) Pg. 181. Appendix H: Copyright Basics Pg. 183. Appendix I: How to Obtain [Copyright] Permission Pg. 199. Page 3. COMMON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR COURSE . STUDENT GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS. Lesson 9: The Army INSTRUCTOR as a Professional continued Appendix J: Generic Request for Copyright Permission Pg. 201.

4 Appendix L: Trust Handout Pg. 203. Appendix M: Cape Research Fact Sheet Trust Pg. 205. Lesson 10: Foundations of Instruction (Collaborative/Interactive Instruction). Topic Discussion Overview Pg. 209. Brainstorming Overview Pg. 213. Brainstorming: Key Points Pg. 217. Brainstorming Variations Pg. 218. Problem Solving Information Pg. 221. Committee Problem Solving: Key Points Pg. 228. Role Playing Pg. 229. Case Study Pg. 231. Lesson 11: Final Practicums (Summative). Glossary Abbreviations Pg. 235. Glossary Pg. 237. INSTRUCTOR Competencies Pg. 243. Principles of Adult Learning Pg. 245. ELM Job Aid Pg. 247. Page 4. Lesson 1. Introduction Action: Describe the purpose of the COURSE . Conditions: In a classroom or training site, with appropriate graphical training aids, given various learning activities, student handouts, advance readings, and peer and INSTRUCTOR feedback. Standards: The description will include: The COURSE outcome and sequence of lessons An overview of the Army Learning Concept An overview of the Army University A description of INSTRUCTOR Competencies and General Learning Outcomes: An overview of the lesson learning objectives Learning Domain - Level: None assigned Page 5.

5 Page 6. What is Army University Supposed to Do and How Is It Going So Far? MG John Kem, Army LTC Andrew T. Hotaling, Army Army University Press/Journal of Military Learning Retrieved from The Army has always placed tremendous emphasis on training and education. It is a foundational part of our culture, dating back to Washington and Von Steuben training that transformed the Continental Army at Valley Forge, the founding of West Point in 1802, the establishment of the School for Cavalry and Infantry at Fort Leavenworth in 1881, and most recently, the establishment of Army University on 5 June 2015. Warfare is and will remain the most difficult of human endeavors, and in the multifaceted world of today, developing soldiers and civilians with the technical, professional, and leadership skills to win in a complex world is more important than ever. The Army has never stood still when it comes to improving training and education, but recently Army leadership has recognized that the rate of change in the operating environment necessitates a true transformation in the way we approach learning in the Army to ensure readiness of our forces now and far into the future.

6 We needed a more innovative enterprise-wide approach to create a culture of career-long learning and to dramatically increase the rate of innovation across the Army. What Will Army University Do? The launch of Army University defined eight key objectives to address innovation and reinvigorate learning across the Army: 1. Develop a world-class FACULTY 2. Professionalize curriculum DEVELOPMENT 3. Grow qualified students 4. Adopt nationally recognized standards 5. Improve professional research and publication 6. Expand public-private partnerships 7. Implement new business and governance practices 8. Create an innovative learning environment1. These objectives, while not easy to achieve, are easily recognized by other services and the very best colleges and universities as key objectives of an institute of higher learning. The Army and other services, however, must also address three key attributes that set them apart from a typical model for higher education: (1) we are the end user of our students, (2) we must address a full spectrum of learning for a wide variety of cohorts with varied educational backgrounds (civilian, enlisted, commissioned officer, and warrant officer), and (3) we must provide effective learning throughout a career.

7 Soldiers complete their training and education courses and then fill our operational and institutional units, providing the technical skills, professional expertise, and leadership of Army units whether active duty, Army Reserve, or National Guard. Like our sister military services, with minor exceptions in the medical and legal fields, we do not and cannot hire in at middle management for our uniformed personnel. It is too difficult to develop the experience, leadership, and warfighting skills required at higher echelons, so our learning has to be effective. Our soldiers and civilians are recruited into the Army with a wide variety of educational backgrounds, ranging from those with high school diplomas to those possessing PhDs. The learning environment must be adaptive to the needs of the learners, engaging them at their level, and progressing them through challenging and relevant curriculum and instruction to higher levels of learning.

8 Further, our Page 7. learning enterprise must be capable of expanding the cognitive abilities, technical skills, and leadership abilities of each of our four cohorts over their entire careers. This would be unachievable without a complete, holistic learning pathway continuum. This long-term focus on learning also provides a unique opportunity. Unlike a typical university, by design, our students will transition from school to operational or institutional units and back again into our school system several times over a career. So, if designed properly, we can achieve a sequential and progressive career-long learning pathway. A second critical challenge is the rapid communication and technology DEVELOPMENT cycles of today, which clearly impact the means in which we conduct current and future warfare. We have to inculcate very rapid feedback mechanisms into our culture and governance processes to acquire operational lessons learned, and we must identify gaps in knowledge from continual review of best practices from military, government, industry, and academia and infuse this new information into our learning outcomes.

9 In the 1960s through the 1990s, the cycle time for introducing changes into Army training and education was typically three to five years. This is not fast enough for today's rapidly changing environment. Soldiers must be able to not only keep pace with quickly shifting requirements but also to thrive in conditions of change in order to dominate adversaries during unified land operations or any other missions assigned to the military. This requires constant assessment and reassessment of the necessary knowledge, skills, and attributes of our four cohorts, accompanied by a governance process capable of quickly adapting to needed change. Other key challenges include scale and scope. The Army University learning ecosystem is comprised of thirty-seven different institutions that are physically located in twenty-three states. Each of these institutions resides within the footprint of one of the six higher education regional accrediting bodies, and together they have an annual throughput of more than one-half million This learning ecosystem supports soldiers and Department of the Army civilian professionals in all fifty states plus numerous overseas locations.

10 Many of our learning efforts are focused on what has traditionally been categorized as either training or education. Few have been degree producing, and a large percentage are more similar to continuing education, whether for technical or COMMON managerial skills. Furthermore, we must have a professional military education (PME) system that supports career DEVELOPMENT and lifelong learning while recognizing that a very high percentage of soldiers only serve for a few years. For example, according to the Army Human Resources Command, less than 15 percent of active- duty enlisted soldiers serve twenty years; roughly 130,000 soldiers transition from Army service each year. Therefore, our learning ecosystem must also support transitioning soldiers and setting them up for success with certificates, licenses, and educational credentials that will enable them to continue to excel after they transition out of the military.